•OCUMENl 

BEClglflilO 


Buke  University  ijitfary 

EXECUTIVE  DOCUMINTS. 


No.    1 


CORRESPOlSrDENCE; 


WITH    THE 


COLLECTOR. 


29th   JANUARY,    1861 


CHARLESTON : 

STEAM-POWER     PRESS  KS     OP     EVANS    k    COGSWELL, 
No.  .3  Broad  and  103  East  Bay  Streets. 

1861. 


^Te 


EXECUTIVE  DOCUMENTS. 


No.   1. 


CORRESPOISrDENCE 


WITH    THE 


COLLECTOR 


29th   JANUARY,    1861 


c 

v_-'     ^J     '--'     \ 


CHARLESTON  : 

6TE  A.M-rOWER    PRESSES    OF    EVANS    b    COGSWELL. 
No.  3  Broad  and  103  East  Bay  Street. 

1861. 


Collector's  Office,  Charleston,  S.  C, 
January  2»th,  1861. 
Hon.  a.  G.  Magrath, 

Executive  OffiM,  State  Department. 

Sir  :  I  beg  leave  to  bniiii;  to  _your  consideration  the  subject 
of  the  commercial  arrangements  of  this  State,  and  the  proba- 
bility that  the  payment  of  duties  and  the  clearance  of  vessels 
will  be  interfered  with  by  the  Government  at  Washington,  in 
such  a  manner  as  to  render  the  transaction  of  business  at  this 
Port  difficult  and  erabarassing. 

I  have  understood  that  Foreign  Ministers  have  been  notified, 
by  the  authorities  at  Washington,  that  all  payments  of  duties 
here  will  be  regarded  as  mispayments,  and  all  clearances  as 
invalid. 

I  presume  the  same  ground  will  be  taken  in  relation  to 
vessels  and  cargoes  owned  by  citizens  of  the  adhering  and  the 
seceding  States  of  the  late  United  States. 

Under  these  circumstances,  I  would  be  glad  to  see  your  views 
as  to  the  course  of  duty  I  should  pursue. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  v^vy  respectfully, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

W.  F.  COLCOCK, 

Collector. 


T  t 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive 
in  2010  witii  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


littp://www.arcliive.org/details/correspondencewiOOsout 


State  op  South  Carolina, 
Executive  Office,  State  Department, 

Charleston,  29th  January,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  conimmiication  1r)  me,  in  which  you  intimate  the 
pvohnbility  thut  tlic  comnicreial  aiTana;emcnts  of  tliis  State, 
particnhirly  sucli  as  rehate  to  the  payment  of  duties  and  the 
clearance  of  vessels,  will  bo  interfered  Avith  by  the  Government 
at  "SYashington  ;  and  that  this  will  be  done  in  a  manner  intend- 
ed and  calculated  to  make  the  transaction  of  business,  at  the 
port  of  Charleston,  difficult  and  embarrassing:  renders  it 
proper,  under  such  circumstances,  to  consider  what  course  of 
conduct  3'ou  should  adopt. 

The  difficulties  Avhich  you  apprehend  must  have  a  practical 
connection  with  vessels  of  three  kinds  :  those  owned  by  For- 
eign Powers;  or  those  owned  by  citizens  of  other  States,  which 
are  still  members  of  the  Confederacy  of  the  United  States ;  or 
those  owned  by  citizens  of  this  State,  or  any  others  of  the 
States,  which  have  dissolved  their  political  connection  with  the 
United  States. 

In  relation  to  vessels  owned  by  the  citizens  or  subjects  of 
Foreign  Powers,  it  is  not  easily  understood  with  what  regard 
to  the  principles  of  public  law,  which  now  command  uni- 
versal acquiescence,  and  have  been  expressly  recognized  by 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  at  Washington,  any  diffi- 
culty can  arise.  The  commercial  intercourse  between  Foreign 
Powei's  and  the  States  which  have  dissolved  their  connection 
with  the  United  States,  has  been  hitherto  regulated  by  the 
several  treaties  or  conventions  made  between  such  Powers  and 
the  United  States  ;  and  such  treaties  or  conventions  continue 
binding  on  the  States  Avhich  still  maintain  the  Confedera- 
tion known  as  the  United  States. 

In  those  treaties  or  conventions,  the  United  States,  acting 
through  the  proper  departments  of  Government,  authorized 
by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  for  that  purpose;  have 


P  H  6.  15  5, 


(J 

beeu  regarded  by  Foreign  Powers,  which  were  parties  to  such 
treaties  or  conventions,  as  a  political  Govei'ument,  representing 
all  the  States  of  the  United  States. 

The  separation  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina  and  other 
States  from  the  United  States — an  act  of  sovereign  power, 
which  each  had  the  right  to  adopt  when  it  would  be  proper  for 
its  peace  and  welfiire — devolves  upon  this  State  or  any  States 
in  the  like  condition,  a  necessity  now  for  the  adoption  of  such 
treaties  or  conventions  as  may  be  proper  for  them  in  their  new 
political  condition. 

The  political  independence  of  each  of  the  several  States  has 
not  been  denied,  except  by  those  wdio  have  desired  that  the 
confederation  of  the  United  States  should  be  in  fact  an  unlimit- 
ed despotism;  with  no  rescource  for  the  States  which  composed 
it,  from  the  effects  of  arbitrary  power,  but  in  the  naked  act  of 
revolution  ;  with  all  the  evils  which  usually  attend  that  move- 
ment when  made  to  accomplish  a  change  of  Government. 

This  necessary  result  of  the  proposition  that  the  with- 
drawal of  a  State  from  the  confederation  of  the  United  States 
w^as  an  act  of  revolution,  would  be  of  itself  sufficient  to  show 
the  fallacy  of  a  proposition,  which  involves  that  as  one  of  its 
consequences.  But  in  addition  to  this,  it  is  to  be  remembered 
that  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  suc- 
ceeded the  recognition  of  the  Independence  of  the  several 
States,  named  in  the  Treaty  of  Peace;  that  the  Constitution 
itself  was  but  an  experiment,  from  which,  while  happy  results 
were  anticipated,  grave  doubts  of  its  sufficiency  were  also  entei*- 
tained;  and  that  the  propo-;ition  as  now  stated,  would  involve 
the  pai-adox  of  a  State;  having,  at  great  cost,  secured  its  Inde- 
pendence, at  the  earliest  period  of  its  security  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  that  Independence;  executing  an  absolute  surrender 
of  it  to  a  Government,  the  sufficiency  of  which  to  subserve  the 
ends  for  wliich  it  was  framed,  could  only  be  ascertained  by  time. 

The  great  truth  that  each  State  in  these  United  States,  was 
intended  to  be,  and  always  has  been  the  immediate  source  of 
protection  to  the  people  who,  within  its  limits,  constituted  the 
political  community,  for  whose  welfare  it  was  organized ;  has 
never  been  and  could  never  be  ignored.  The  Government  of 
the  United  States  might  be  thoroughly  disorganized,  and  be 
rendered  incapable  of  performing  any  of  its  functions,  yet 
would  each  of  the  States  which  were  united  in  the  confedera- 


tion,  known  as  the  United  States ;  in  its  internal  condition,  pre- 
sent the  evidence  of  a  separate  Government;  perfectly  organ- 
ized, and  securing  for  the  political  comninnit}"  over  which  it 
was  placed,  all  the  objects  for  which  Government  is  instituted. 
The  dissolution  of  the  Union  would  only  tend  to  disorganize 
the  political  agenc}^  which  the  several  States,  for  purposes  chiefly 
concerning  their  united  relations  with  foreign  powers  had 
created.  While  the  disintegration  within  the  limits  of  eacb 
State  of  the  political  communities,  which  were  in  each  States- 
would  involve  necessarily  the  absolute  extinguishment  of  all 
Government. 

The  political  organization,  therefore,  of  the  several  States, 
not  less  than  the  circumstances  connected  with  the  adoption  of 
the  Constitution,  conclusively  show  that  these  States  have 
always  been  so  constituted;  that  in  the  event  of  their  separation, 
from  the  Confederacy,  no  other  necessity  would  be  devolved: 
upon  them  than  tliat  of  establishing  those  foreign  relations,  and. 
providing  for  such  other  matters  affecting  their  external  con- 
dition as  while  in  the  Union  Avere  to  be  performed  by  the  com- 
mon agent  of  all  the  States. 

When,  therefore,  a  State  secedes  from  the  Confederation,  the 
act  is  done  by  an  organized  Government;  the  existence  of 
wdiich  is  recognized  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States; 
the  authority  of  which,  for  all  the  purposes  of  internal  govern- 
ment, is  paramount  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States ; 
the  functions  of  which  cannot  be  accomplished  by  the  Govern, 
ment  of  the  United  States;  and  which  has  been  the  immediate 
and  exclusive  source  of  the  allegiance  binding  its  citizens  in 
subjection  to  itself,  and  through  it  to  the  Government  of  the 
United  States. 

This  brief  exposition  of  the  precise  relations  which  have 
existed  between  the  States,  as  organized  political  communities, 
under  settled  forms  of  governments  peculiar  to  each,  and  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  ;  will  be  quite  sufficient  to 
show  Foreign  Powers,  how  unfounded  is  the  statement  which 
may  be  made,  of  their  present  movement  being  an  act  of  law- 
less violence,  or  their  internal  condition  being  that  of  insur- 
rectionary tumult.  If  a  State  had  not  the  right  to  secede 
from  the  United  States,  then  would  the  consequences  have  fol 
lowed,  that  being  free  before  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution, 


it  lost  its  freedom  by  becoming  a  party  to  a  comjoact  to  secure, 
among  other  things,  a  more  perfect  freedom. 

The  State  of  South  Carolina  having  seceded  from  the  United 
States,  either  in  its  separate  condition,  or  with  the  other 
States  which  have  also  seceded,  has  a  right  to  the  enjoy- 
ment of  that  intercourse  with  the  Powers  of  the  world  which 
is  intended,  in  its  development,  to  promote  the  welfare  of  the 
human  family;  and  entitles  all  to  be  embraced  within  its  limits 
who  can  contribute  to  its  resources  for  good,  or  be  impruved  by 
the  benefits  it  confers.  And  it  is  believed  that  no  sentiment  of 
public  morality  is  more  cherished,  nor  a,^^y  principle  of  public 
law  better  recognized,  than  that  by  which  any  political  com- 
munity is  entitled  to  participate  in  the  benefits,  and  contribute 
to  the  advantages,  which  result  from  the  intercourse  of  inde- 
pendent political  communities  upon  terms  of  peace  and  amity. 

Upon  this  statement,  therefoi-e,  of  the  true  condition  which 
this  State,  and  each  of  the  seceding  States  maintains,  there 
cannot  be,  with  the  least  respect  to  the  principles  of  public  law, 
or  the  usages  of  independent  political  communities  in  their 
relations,  any  cause  of  difficulty  in  the  regulation  of  their 
commercial  intercourse  with  each  other.  Independent  Powers 
permit  no  Interference  with  the  arrangements  they  may  make 
for  their  mutual  benefit,  unless  that  benefit  is  secured  by  a 
disregard  of  the  obligations  which  should  be  recognized  to- 
wards other  Powers. 

Your  letter,  however,  leads  me  to  conclude  that  the  difticulty 
which  is  apprehended  arises  altogether  from  the  refusal  of  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  to  admit  the  independence 
of  the  State  of  South  Carolina.  And  as  the  consequence  of 
this  denial,  the  supposed  assertion  of  its  right  to  enforce  its 
laws  within  the  limits  of  the  State. 

All  that  has  been  said  in  relation  to  the  present  condition  ol 
the  State,  is  explanatory  of  the  position  it  now  occupies  as  an 
Independent  Power  de  jure.  But,  if  this  be  denied  by  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States,  it  cannot  be  contended,  in  the 
face  of  existing  facts,  tliat  there  is  not  now,  in  and  over  the 
-State  of  South  Carolina,  a  Government  de  facto ;  capable  of 
exercising,  and  actually  exercising,  all  the  functions  of  an 
Independent  Government.  To  the  relations,  therefore,  which 
properly  arise  between  such  a  Government,  the  Government  of 


9 

the  United  States,  and  Foreign  Powers,  it  is  proper  briefly  to 
refer. 

And  I  cannot  but  regard  it  as  fortunate,  that  in  the  considera- 
tion of  the  relation  which  exists,  according  to  the  Law  of 
nations,  between  anj^  Foreign  Power  and  a  government  de  facto, 
the  Late  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States,  and  the  now 
Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States,  then  the  Attorney 
General  of  the  United  States,  have  given  a  construction  of 
the  law  of  nations  in  this  respect,  in  its  application  to  a  case 
probably  similar  to  that  which  may  arise  here.  In  that  case, 
the  then  Secretary  of  State,  considering  the  rights  of  foreigners 
to  trade  Avith  a  portion  of  Peru  then  in  a  condition  of  revolt, 
says  "  they  had  a  right  to  enter  any  port  of  the  Eepublic 
open  to  foreign  commerce,  and  not  blockaded,  for  the  prose- 
cution of  their  commercial  enterprises;  and  it  Avas  their  duty, 
after  such  entrance,  to  obey  the  authorities  they  might  find 
established  there.  And  the  same  principle  which  is  applicable 
to  the  jurisdiction  of  a  de  facto  government  over  persons, 
applies  with  equal  force  to  questions  of  internal  administration 
touching  the  public  revenue.  These  are  subjects  which  follow 
the  possession  of  the  powers  of  Government.  The  views,  there- 
fore, which  you  present  at  some  length,  of  the  laws  of  Peru, 
providing  for  the  regulation  of  the  trade  in  guano,  and  pre- 
scribing penalties  for  their  violation,  have  no  practical  connec- 
tion with  the  case  of  these  two  American  vessels.  The  true 
construction  of  these  regulations,  their  repeal  or  suspension,  or 
modification  or  application,  are  questions  of  administration,  to 
be  decided  by  the  acting  administrative  Power,  to  whose  deci- 
sion foreigners  must  submit."  The  then  Attorney  General  of 
the  United  States,  now  its  Secretarj^  of  State,  had  the  same 
case  referred  to  him  for  his  opinion,  considers  the  case  at  len<2;th, 
and  announces,  as  one  of  the  leading  projiositions  to  sujiport  his 
conclusion,  that  "  when  the  people  of  a  Republic  are  divided 
into  two  hostile  parties,  who  take  up  arms  and  oppose  one 
another  by  military  force,  this  is  civil  war." 

Proceeding  then  to  attirm  the  existence  of  civil  war  in  Peru, 
the  Attorney  General  adds,  in  reference  to  the  vessels  of  the 
United  States,  "they  had  a  right  to  be  protected  when  they 
obej'cd  the  regulations  Avhich  thej'  found  established  and  in  force 
at  the  place."  The  results  at  which  the  Attorney  General  ar- 
rives, are  then  announced  by  him  in  six  distinct  propositions. 


10 

which  may  be  thus  stated  :  that,  in  a  civil  war,  where  one  partj 
has  possession  of  a  part  of  the  country,  and  there  has  oflRcered 
the  local  government,  the  jurisdiction  of  that  party  is  perfect ; 
and  foreign  vessels  trading  there  must  conform  to  its  decrees : 
and  that  American  vessels  having  obeyed  the  laws  of  the  place, 
thus  established  and  acted  in  pursuance  of  licenses  given  by 
the  oflScers  in  authority,  were  not  guilty  of  anything  for  which 
the  other  party  could  punish  or  molest  them  afterwards. 

This  exposition  of  the  law  of  nations,  as  made  by  the  former 
and  present  Secretary  of  State,  at  a  very  recent  period  in  rela- 
tion to  a  case,  the  circumstances  of  which  may  be  safely 
assumed,  as  similar  to  such  as  will  belong  to  any  case  arising 
before  j^ou ;  may  be  properly  assumed  as  the  rule  which  at  this 
time  will  be  recognized  by  the  government  of  the  United 
States,  in  relation  to  the  vessels  of  Foreign  Powers,  entering 
or  clearing  from  this  port. 

With  this  supposition,  therefore,  which  a  decent  and  proper 
regard  for  the  Government  of  the  United  States  forbids  to  be 
questioned,  until  that  Government  shall  assume  the  responsi- 
bility of  doing  so  itself,  it  will  be  convenient  for  you  easily  to 
dispose  of  each  case  which  may  arise.  It  will  be  sufficient  for 
you  to  notify  the  parties  in  all  cases,  that  the  State  of  South 
Carolina  is  not  a  part  of  the  United  States;  that  the  Eevenue 
Laws  of  the  United  States  are  not  of  force  within  the  limits  of 
this  State ;  that  all  commercial  regulations  at  this  port  are  of 
force  by  the  authority  only  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina;  and 
that  no  interference  will  be  permitted  by  the  Government  of  the 
United  States,  with  such  regulations  as  the  State  of  South  Car- 
olina has  provided ;  nor  will  the  authority  of  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  be  permitted  to  be  exercised  within  the 
limits  of  the  State.  You  will,  thereupon,  proceed  to  discharge 
your  duties  as  provided  in  the  Ordinance  of  the  Convention  : 
and,  if  it  should  happen  that  after  such  explanation,  in  any 
case,  other  questions  may  arise  than  such  as  are  provided  for 
in  this  note,  you  will  make  a  particular  report  to  this  depart- 
ment. Whatever  may  be  the  ability  of  a  Foreign  Power  to 
secure  for  its  vessels  adequate  protection,  the  authorities  of 
this  State  will  regard  the  attempt  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States,  to  interfere  with  the  vessel  of  a  friendly  Power 
upon  the  waters  over  which  the  jurisdiction  of  the  State  ex- 


11 

tends;  in  the  same  light  as  if  the  attempt  were  made  upon 
a  vessel  belonging  to  this  State. 

The  next  class  of  vessels  concerning  which  any  question  can 
arise,  arc  vessels  owned  by  citizens  of  States  which  are  still 
members  of  the  Confederac}-  known  as  the  United  States.  Such 
vessels  are,  of  coui-se,  bound  by  the  municipal  laws  of  the  coun- 
try to  whicli  they  belong.  And  it  will  be  for  the  Government  of 
that  country  to  impose  upon  these  vessels  such  penalties  as  it 
ma}'  clioose  to  provide  for  what  it  may  consider  violations  of  its 
municipal  laws.  The  questions  which  arise  in  relation  to  such 
vessels  arc  to  be  decided  by  the  Government  of  the  United 
States.  If  that  Government  shall  consider  it  proper  to  forfeit 
and  condemn  the  vessels,  or  to  subject  to  monc}-  penalties,  the 
citizens  who  are  within  its  jurisdiction ;  that  question  affects 
that  government;  and  those  citizens  who  are  subject  to  its  laws 
must  be  subject  to  its  control,  however  much  it  may  affect 
them  or  their  property.  If  it  shall  become  the  policy  of  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  to  impose  such  penalties  on 
their  citizens  as  will  be  equivalent  to  a  prohibition  of  all  inter- 
course between  them  and  the  citizens  of  this  State  and  otlier 
seceding  States,  it  will  be  a  matter  which  exclusively  aiiects 
them.  To  such  a  policy,  if  it  shall  commend  itself  to  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States,  this  State  has  no  right  to  object. 

The  last  class  of  vessels  which  are  or  may  be  affected  by  the 
interference  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  are  those 
owned  bj-  citizens  of  this  or  other  slaveholding  States. 

The  immediate  source  of  protection  to  a  vessel  navigating  the 
high  seas  is  in  the  right  which,  under  the  law  of  nations,  each 
political  community  has  to  use  that  "  which  is  the  great  high 
way  of  nations"  for  such  purposes  as  ai'e  connected  with  its 
welfare.  The  high  seas  are  the  common  property  of  all  nations. 
The  municipal  laws  of  each  State  or  Nation  apply  strictly  to  its 
own  vessels ;  they  have  no  authority  over  the  vessels  of  any 
other  State  or  Nation.  And  the  municipal  laws  of  a  State  or 
Nation  are  in  this  respect  distinguished  in  the  influence  they 
exercise,  fi*om  that  which  is  derived  from  the  law  of  nations ; 
the  law  of  nations  being  of  universal  application  and  obligatory 
upon  all. 

The  right  to  navigate  the  high  seas  is  qualified  so  far  as 
may  be  necessary  to  make  that  enjoyment  consistent  with  a 


due  regard  to  the  welfare  and  convenience  of  other  nations. 
Hence  the  absence  of  that  protection  which  secures  the  right 
to  navigate  the  seas,  subjects  a  vessel  to  a  liability  to  the  muni- 
cipal laws  of  any  other  Government,  which  may  please  to 
execute  its  laws  upon  that  vessel.  And  doing  so,  it  ti'cats  that 
vessel  jirecisely  as  it  would  do  one  of  its  own  vessels,  detected 
in  a  violation  of  its  municipal  laws.  This  is  done  because  the 
vessel  is  not  possessed  of  the  protection  which  exempts  it  from 
a  liabilit}"  to  the  municipal  laws  of  other  nations ;  and  this 
protection  it  has  not,  when  it  does  not  acknowledge  obedience 
to  an  independent  political  community.  Whenever  it  does 
owe  that  obedience,  the  responsibility  of  the  Government  to 
which  that  obedience  is  due,  becomes  to  other  nations  the 
guaranty  that  such  a  vessel  shall  not  violate,  upon  the  high 
seas,  the  laws  of  nations;  nor  within  the  waters  of  any  inde- 
pendent nation  the  municipal  laws  of  that  nation.  When,  to 
all  the  nations  of  the  world,  there  is  this  guaranty,  in  that  is 
found  sufficient  assurance  of  the  peaceful  character  and  proper 
conduct  of  the  vessel.  And  when  this  is  so,  the  right  of  the 
vessel  is  complete,  under  the  law  of  nations,  to  that  protection, 
the  essential  element  of  which  is  exemption  from  the  munici- 
pal laws  of  every  other  nation. 

This  responsibility  is,  therefore,  connected  with  the  independ- 
ence of  a  nation.  But  that  independence  is  not  to  be  found 
onl}'  in  the  recognition  of  that  independence  by  other  nations. 

The  highest  evidence  of  the  independence  of  a  State  or 
Nation  is  in  its  ability  to  prevent  the  execution  of  the  Laws  of 
any  other  State  or  Nation,  within  its  own  territorial  limits. 
When  no  other  authority  is  exercised  or  can  be  exercised, 
within  its  limits,  than  such  as  that  State  or  Nation  may  pre-- 
scribe,  it  asserts  in  that,  the  highest  attinbute  of  political  inde- 
pendence.    It  is  then  recognized  as  a  Government  de  jure. 

But  the  authority  of  a  de  facto  Government  has  been  recog- 
nized in  the  United  States  as  sufficient  to  give  to  captures  made 
by  it  the  character  of  captures  made  by  a  Government  dc  jure. 
And  the  2)olicy  of  the  United  States  has  invariably  led  to  its 
speedy  acknowledgment  of  any  Government,  where  that  Gov- 
ernment exhibited  any  evidence  of  stabilit}^,  and  the  people  who 
adopted  it  were  earnest  in  its  support. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  has,  therefore,  to  deter- 
mine whether  it  can  find  authority  to  capture,  on  the  high  seas. 


13 

a  vessel  of  a  State  which  has  seceded  from  the  United  States, 
and  is,  in  fact,  an  Independent  State,  and  condemn  it  as 
forfeited,  because  of  an  alleged  violation  of  the  laws  of  the 
United  States.  To  constitute,  however,  a  violation  of  the  laws 
of  the  United  States,  because  of  which  a  vessel,  subject  to  its 
laws,  under  the  provisions  therein  made,  may  be  forfeited  and 
condemned,  the  special  terms  of  the  law  must  be  broken.  But 
all  of  these  hiAvs,  of  course,  provide  with  certainty  certain 
modes  in  which  their  several  provisions  are  to  be  executed. 
And  these  provisions  embrace  a  place,  the  form,  the  time,  and 
the  persons,  at  which,  how,  when,  and  by  whom,  certain  acts 
are  to  be  done.  If  all  of  these  are  wanting;  if  compliance, 
therefore,  with  them  is  a  matter  of  impossibilit}^,  even  if  the 
owner  desired  so  to  do;  if  there  is  no  Custom  House,  no  Col- 
lector, no  mode  or  manner  in  Avhieh  an  individual  can  conform 
to  the  law  ;  and  that  omission  or  absence  known  to  the  Govern- 
ment, and  not  supplied ;  any  attempt  to  punish  an  individual 
or  forfeit  property,  because  of  a  non-compliance  with  them, 
would  be  absurd. 

Indeed,  the  absence  of  all  such  regulations  may  safely  be 
regarded  as  the  acquiescence  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  in  the  rightful  independence  of  the  power  bj'  which  they 
have  been  destroyed,  and  their  enforcement  rendered  impossi- 
ble. Even  then,  upon  the  narrowest  and  most  technical  ground, 
an  attempt  to  forfeit  a  vessel  because  of  her  non-compliance 
with  the  provisions  of  the  Laws  of  the  United  States,  would, 
before  any  impai-tial  tribunal  or  enlightened  Judge,  be  summa- 
rily dismissed.  Nor  would  the  repetition  or  renewal  of  the 
attempt  to  enforce  such  condemnation  or  forfeiture,  be  regard- 
ed otherwise  than  the  exhibition  of  a  tyrannical  will,  stripped 
of  the  power  to  make  its  attempted  exercise  even  respectable. 

But  in  all  such  questions,  the  Commercial  Nations  of  the 
world  are  also  interested  parties.  And  the  occasions  have  often 
arisen,  when  a  due  regard  to  their  own  welfare,  has  forced  them 
to  interfere,  and  direct  a  suspension  of  hostilities,  which,  in 
their  prosecution,  could  but  aggravate  the  sufferings  which  a 
condition  of  hostilities  always  begets.  The  cases  in  which  this 
interference  has  been  exercised  as  a  right,  are  well  known ; 
and  the  right,  itself,  may  now  be  regarded  as  recognized  by  the 
nations  of  the  world.  Perhaps  it  would  not  be  easy  to  discover 
a  case  in  which  the  interference  of  a  Government  would  be 


14 

more  purcl}'  miseliievous,  and  more  palpably  designed  to  do 
evil,  "without  the  slightest  chance  for  good ;  which  would  be 
more  wanting  in  the  attributes  which  give  character  to  the 
operations  of  Government,  even  when  offensive ;  and  be  more 
utterly  incapable  of  securing  the  results  which  might  be  given 
as  the  pretext  for  its  exercise ;  than  would  be  furnished  in  the 
attempt  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  interfere 
with  the  commerce  of  this  State  or  of  any  other  State  which 
has  seceded  from  the  United  States;  and,  in  the  discharge  of  its 
high  obligations  to  the  civilization  of  the  present  age,  assume 
its  place  among  the  Independent  Powers  of  the  world,  and  de- 
vote itself  to  the  extension  of  the  blessings  which  Peace 
affords. 

You  will  thus  see  tliat  should  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  in  relation  to  Foreign  vessels,  change  the  rule  which  it 
has  declared  applicable  to  its  own  vessels,  it  will  be  for  that 
government  to  explain  to  Foreign  Nations  the  reasons  which 
have  induced,  at  this  time,  that  change.  And  it  will  be  for 
such  Foreign  Nations  to  determine  how  far  such  reasons  are 
satisfactory. 

In  regard  to  any  interference  with  vessels  owned  in  this 
State,  or  any  other  State  which  has  or  may  secede,  you  will,  of 
course,  give  the  earliest  notice  of  it  to  this  Department. 

It  will  be  proper  for  you  to  deliver  a  cojiy  of  this  note  to  each 
Consul  of  a  Foreign  Power,  who  may  be  resident  at  this  place, 
Eespectfully 

Your  obedient  servant, 

A.  G.  MAGEATH. 

To  the  Hon.  W.  F.  Colcock, 

Collector  of  the  Fort  of  Charleston. 


% 


